Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639278 --- Comment #10 from Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-14 12:42:53 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable (+) rpmlint is not silent, some messages can be ignored: - spelling errors are false positives - only-non-binary-in-usr-lib and no-binary: general Erlang packaging problem which cannot be avoided in the package - Explicit lib dependency is required, as no shared lib that can be auto-detected - no-documentation: I suggest adding README and COPYRIGHT file (see below), there is also documentation in doc/, why is it not included? You might also want to include the examples as doc. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD). - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. - There is a COPYRIGHT file containing the license, it must be included in the %doc section + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. package# sha256sum rvirding-lfe-v0.6.1-0-g1bcf461.tar.gz e84a8c8e743badcae9438b66897210c6266f79d580fa9d67fa0dfcd0eff0d976 rvirding-lfe-v0.6.1-0-g1bcf461.tar.gz downloaded# sha256sum ~/download/rvirding-lfe-v0.6.1-0-g1bcf461.tar.gz e84a8c8e743badcae9438b66897210c6266f79d580fa9d67fa0dfcd0eff0d976 ~/download/rvirding-lfe-v0.6.1-0-g1bcf461.tar.gz + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. The documentation should be fixed, the inclusion of the COPYRIGHT file must be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review